Burleson v. Collins

• Decision Date: 13 February 1895
• Citation: 29 S.W. 688
• Parties: BURLESON v. COLLINS et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

29 S.W. 688

BURLESON v. COLLINS et al.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

February 13, 1895.

On rehearing. Denied.

For former opinion, see 28 S. W. 898.

FISHER, C. J.

The certified copy of the record of the deed from John T. Burleson to A. B. Burleson was not solely relied upon as sufficient evidence of its execution, but was admitted as a fact or circumstance tending to show that such a deed had been executed. The fact that such a deed appeared of record, and that it was properly acknowledged, is a circumstance to be considered in connection with other evidence — when the original cannot be produced, as was the fact in this case — by the jury as bearing upon the issue as to whether the deed was executed. Holmes v. Coryell, 58 Tex. 680; Railway Co. v. Stealey, 66 Tex. 468, 1 S. W. 186; Crain v. Huntington, 81 Tex. 614, 17 S. W. 243; Dawson v. Ward, 71 Tex. 74, 9 S. W. 106; Emanuel v. Gates, 3 C. C. A. 663, 53 Fed. 772. It is well settled that the execution of a deed may be proven by circumstances. Clapp v. Engledow (Tex. Sup.) 18 S. W. 148; Crain v. Huntington (Tex. Sup.) 17 S. W. 243; Bounds v. Little, 75 Tex. 316, 12 S. W. 1109. We adhere to our former rulings made in this case. Motion overruled.

1. Writ of error denied by supreme court.